Half of Americans think Hillary Clinton represents the future more than any other potential 2016 candidate the headline proclaims at theweek.com. I’m no math prodigy but doesn’t that mean that half of Americans don’t think Hillary Clinton represents the future? Hang on; what does “represent the future” even mean, and why do I suddenly have an image of Marty McFly on a hoverboard in my head? Anyway, what if Hillary Clinton is our next President? What would she, could she do to degrade and destroy American gun rights (as is her wont)? What would, could a Republican-controlled Congress do to keep her in line, firearms freedom-wise?
Home Question of the Day Question of the Day: WWHD? (What Would Hillary Do?)
I didn’t want to think of anything of this today. Now I need a drink.
Agreed. Needed to crack one before I posted too. Come what may in 16, I’m getting my ducks in a row before then. Guns, ammo, and accessories. We’ve got time, just have your affairs in order before January 2017.
If she’s elected, our gun rights are gone.
I do know this-if you want spare mags ,AKs/ARs and components thereof,get them NOW.
Working on it. I’m gonna get a couple more AR’s (probably bushmaster) and a lot of ammo/magazines.
Only if a Democratic Majority is elected in both Houses of Congress.
All she has to do is use the ATF like her husband did.
How exactly? If she had the God like power that entails I don’t think our guns would be much use anyway.
She will simply do whatever is in her best interest. She is a lifetime politician, she only became a NY Senator out of personal necessity. Why would she run for president? Only she knows, but i’m sure we will all suffer attacks on our personal freedoms by her if elected.
I think you have not been looking. She is a lifetime crook, she only became a politician in order to continue/increase her occupation of being a crook. Still, I agree that she probably does not actually care about 2A other than how she can scare up votes or make money on crooked investments about the subject.
It’s not a lock. Hildebeast has lots of baggage. +it’s OLD and wasn’t the beast supposed to win in 2008? If everyone voted on the republitard side we would win. But we’ll probably get Bush or someone who sucks…
Wouldn’t we technically get a pretty lousy bush either way?
…Excuse me while I go wash the taste of vomit out of my mouth
Ouch… need mind bleach
Not gonna lie… that one took me a second…
Reminds me of a very old joke I heard as a kid, what do Reagan’s and Mondale’s running mates have in common.
Personally I think someone like Scott Walker has the potential to pull an upset. He can win in the primaries with real conservatives AND the establishment GOP. He also has a solid track record of putting Libturds in their place: the unemployment line. (Well, lets face it, that’s where all Libturds would rather be anyway right? suckleing at the Guvmints tit without having to work)
Scott Walker would definitely get my vote. He’s had some actual success, which is downright horrifying to the lefty establishment.
And if there’s no voter ID requirement, maybe I’ll just cast a couple dozen votes his way to cancel out what the left has done. Note to NSA: I’m just kidding.
Meh. I think the likelihood of Hillary Clinton being our next president is exceedingly low. It’s a good way to rile people up (and therefore good clickbait – heck, it worked on me), but her chances of making it through the primary process and then winning the election are pretty tiny. America might be ready for a female president, but Hillary ain’t it.
To those who think she’s got a sure lock on the Democratic nomination, think back to a time when all the talking heads were sure that Rudy Giuliani was going to be the Republican nominee. How’d that work out for him?
I suspect she will self-destruct pretty late in the game, the only person we can get up to speed in time is … wait for it … MICHELLE!!
Go ahead, try to tell me I’m crazy!
For a minute, I thought you meant Bachmann, and I thought you were really crazy, but I think you mean Obama, which is semi-plausible. I don’t know how good a platform First Lady would be for a run though.
The very thought of that would make the HildaBeast pop an aneurysm…
On a serious note: I remember with horror how relieved I was when Obama beat the HildaBeast in the Dem primary in ’08… (ANYONE but the HildaBeast!!!)
Look what that got us.
1) Remind the world that she could not protect herself or us from her husband.
2) Divvy the Blue and Gray.
a desperate Desperate Dem party with few real options might gt behind her. that and MSM support would make her a real popossibility .
forget that gentlemanly blue grey stuff. nobody is really gonna fight.
That’s what they said in March 1861.
You could say “no one’s going to fight” but what would you say if you were.
Don’t worry, I won’t hold you to it.
And, I won’t ask what you’ll be wearing.
““If when Political objects are unimportant, motives weak, the excitement of forces small, a
cautious commander tries in all kinds of ways, without great crises and bloody solutions, to
twist himself skillfully into peace through the characteristic weakness of his enemy in the
field and in the cabinet, we have no right to find fault with him, if the premise on which he
acts are well founded and justified by success; still we must require him to remember that
he only travels on forbidden tracks, where the God of War may surprise him; that he ought
always to keep his eye on the enemy, in order that he may not have to defend himself with
a dress rapier if the enemy takes u p a sharp sword”. (Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 137)
While Clausewitz was obviously addressing the idea of conflict between varying levels of
participants, the author here wishes the reader to recognize the fact that when the overall idea
of conflict is reduced to its absolute simplicity, YOU (the reader) are “the commander.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 26]
Whatever she will do, we should make her admit it BEFORE the election, so she will be forced to run on that position, and restate it frequently. We saw what happens when that doesn’t happen. “Obamas not coming for your guns, he has no interest in gun control,” they said…
What we make her say doesn’t make a whit of difference. We recently watched a candidate for SC forced to clearly state a position, and rule precisely opposite it two weeks after confirmation. They don’t mind lying even a little bit, say whatever it takes to get you some more POWER. The voter needs to look at a lifetime of work history to learn the real story, simply asking tells us nothing.
Yes, but suppose it is the antis she is forced to lie to. Would she push an AWB knowing a midterm election is right around the corner, and her more immediate agenda would be jeopardized by it? It would really, really make me happy to see THEIR damn ox get gored, for once.
The antis would simply rationalize away her lies just like they do all the rest. “It’s tactics – she’ll introduce it after the midterms” et cetera.
Why should your example be any different?
Yeah, no offense, but good luck with that and by the way do you want to buy a bridge over some prime Florida real estate?
Politicians will say or, let’s be honest, do, whatever they think will induce the most number of people to vote for them. If Hillary thought a wardrobe malfunction would get her a lock on a broad segment of the population, malfunction it would.
Chances of gun control passing with this congress are pretty low. The real test will be what republican congress does with the next president. No matter what party wins the presidency congress needs to work with them and do its job on time.
Luckily the courts shut down the whole immigration issue so compromise at the moment will be easier.
Never to be trusted. She’d make a good GOP candidate — she’s certainly not a Democrat. Not that Democrats are any more trustworthy than Republicans.
I really loathe Dick Cheney, but given a choice between him and Hill, I’d vote for Cheney — he has more integrity, even if he is a corporate scumbag.
Gordon I’ll take a scumbag whose upfront about being one over any other politician at least you know where they stand.
If Cheney is a corporate scumbag, then you are a failed one, having squandered equal opportunity.
If you are ‘live’ in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, or a rino, the problem is part of you, and you are irrevocably damaged.
At least with Cheney you know what you’re getting and there isn’t a religious like following behind him worshipping his every word….. That’s why I’d take any Republican over any Democrat any day. Because at the end of the day Democrats can get away with shit WAY easier than any Republican can.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Cheney is the most evil person to ever walk the face of the planet. He has no goal in life but power. When Bush asked him to find a running mate for his presidential bid, he came back with his own name. He was the man behind the push for the Iraq war. He is the reason Bush was seen as a bad president. Would not vote for.
Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t have a rat’s ass of a chance. With republicans, she has to answer for the “what difference does it make” comments in the wake of 4 American’s deaths at the hands of terrorists. With women (her real supporters) she will have to answer for an audio tape of her laughing about getting a rapist off scott free. She has zero chance.
Personally, if I had to bet right now, I’d put money on something happening and the election being canceled so that Obama gets to stay in power. Always bet on the crazy option. It’s becoming more and more common these days.
Forrest, you ignore history. We posted Saddam Hussein to counter the Ayatollahs in Iran after Carter shat on their Shah. Saddam called himself the “President” and the worthless human stain of the surrounding countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia) prevented him from any stature in the region, and he traded the wealth of his nation to set himself up like a king. 1991 rolls around and Saddam takes Kuwait, the U.N. asks us to remove him (but not kill him or take Baghdad so they could do ‘oil for food’ programs for awhile) as long as Saddam adhered to certain U.N. resolutions (which he agreed to, but didn’t) Bill Clinton did Monica instead of enforcement and kanoodled with the Chinese which caused Jamie Gorelick (Former Deputy AG now @ Urban.org governing over the renewals of Not For Profits for the IRS) to Wall of Separation us away from a decent cohesive proactive preemption to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or 9/11. Bush II comes to town and thankfully (10yrs later) enforces the U.N. resolutions. [If you needed WMD proof it’s only because you were too stupid to need another reason, however, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.VOZ3lqPnbKI and http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq%5D
“He [Cheney] has no goal in life but power.”
And that’s different from Mrs. Clinton in what way, exactly?
“Personally, if I had to bet right now, I’d put money on something happening and the election being canceled so that Obama gets to stay in power.”
Ah, there it is! That train is never late. I seem to recall liberals all lathered up in 2008 that Bush was going to pull the same trick, and conservatives said the same about Bill Clinton in 2000, and on and on, as far back as I’ve been paying attention to politics.
The fact is, the people who hold the real power in this country don’t give two-thirds of a half-eaten shit who sits in the big chair, because by the time someone reaches the presidential level of politics, they’ve been bought and paid for a thousand times over. Nobody is going to be allowed to be president who is going to upset the oligarchy’s apple cart. So why would they let a president “call off” the election (how would that work, exactly?) to stay in office, when they can just stick the next figurehead in place and continue with business-as-usual?
None of that matters. She’s holding a flintlock in the air, and I am a gun owner, which means I…must…vote…for…Hillary.
She’s holding a flintlock while saying this is all the 2nd amendment entitles us to own.
wow. So let me understand. Leaving aside the money laundering, past and present – this individual who in her guise as Secretary of State was unable to translate a single word of Russian through any of the means of the State dept itself, the greater DC/Metro area or in a pinch Google translate not to mention all that icky doody business in Ben-something or other polls that high in this country?
Hey!! Be nice! She’s flat broke, we should hand her the presidency without asking icky questions about her bank accounts.
Nope, it wasn’t a mistranslated button. She and the state department wanted an “overcharged” Russia, and they got one. The foolish thing was trying to convince some of us it said “reset”.
What would Hillary do? In her own words, “what difference does it make?” She’s older than dirt, looks like a grandma but acts like a shrew and has a history of blood clots and mini-strokes. I think that the country would prefer someone with a bit more vigor to be its wartime leader.
A lot of people really thought she’d be a great Prez, but in her own words, “that was a long time ago!”
After the last 8 years I think the American people are ready to step away from novelties and get serious. I don’t know who the next prez will be, but I feel it won’t be billery.
The MSM, social media and Millenniums who do not know better will happily push to get her elected. Above all else many in the DNC care more about image and making history than actually fixing real problems in the economy. From what I can tell the Left media has already preordained her as the next president and the DNC primary will be weak sauce just to go through the motions.
The country elected twice a first term senator with zero executive experience whose chief claim to fame was as a community organizer and being Black. Even RF voted for the current prez. The urban idiots, soccer moms and limousine liberals will have no problem electing a person who should be retired.
If the Republican Party has an establishment party person as their guy, most conservatives and even independents will simply stay home and the gimme dat urban groups will determine the election.
This over and over again, sadly.
I get really tired of people blaming the political climate on the millennials. The system as built by the generations before us have made millennials poorer than previous generations. The poor economic situation created by those ahead of us has made us the poorest of recent generations. Every millennial I know works as hard and has as many skills as previous generations. What they lost with Obama, who appeared to be a political outsider, was any and all trust in the government. I’m proud to be part of a generation that is becoming more liberty minded and skeptical of the government than any generation before us.
Don’t blame us young ones for problems you created…
“…most conservatives and even independents will simply stay home…”
Do you really think there wouldn’t be a record conservative turnout to vote against Hillary, regardless of who the Republican candidate is?
No Stink, I don’t. Pascal is100% correct. I’ve been following politics for a long time and conservatives do not vote for “anybody”, the way Dems do. We need someone like Rubio (Young, good-looking, Hispanic) to pull the women and minority vote away from the Dems. At this point in history, old, white, Republican guys are just not going to pull in enough votes. A good Woman Senator or Governor (Jan Brewer-R-AZ?) running mate could be a big help too. (Palin was too inexperienced to take on the media libs.) I don’t profess to know what will happen, (I had a big laugh the first couple of times I heard the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” and still can’t believe that he was elected…twice), but our country has changed from the 20th century and we have to do whatever it takes to win….and in the respect of ammo and mags and firearms…Get what you can get, while you can get it.
Spoken like a true educated, invested and circumspect voter, JWM.
Unfortunately there are way too many low information entitlement dreaming sheeple who will vote for the most charismatic deceitful utopian “novelty” that runs on the presidential ballot, particularly those living in densely populated socialist/statist metropolitan areas and cemeteries..
Additionally, as Pascal points out, the state invested MSM will do everything in its power to ordain the next President, no doubt the holder of the Democrat ticket. The only question will be whether Clinton has the ganas to see it to the end of the run without blacking out from fatigue.
I’d vote for a maul axe to my crotch for president before this broad.
AND there may be a huge sex scandal with slick willy and underage girls connected with Prince Andrew. Btw I just saw some S##t on yahoo about willy being ranked much higher in the list of recent presidents. It seems working for the poor pays really well…
So, the 1990s are the future? I guess if we go back to the future it is. She represents the past and the establishment more than anything.
Anyway, what if Hillary Clinton is our next President?
Cause ammo and gun panic 2.0 and see if she can beat Obama for Gun Salesmen of the year.
I predict that leading up to election, like mid next summer, we will have gun and ammo panic 2.0
Why don’t we just convert to a monarchy and call it what it is…
We can have names like Bush the fourteenth and Clinton eleventh.
Why be a monarchy when we are already an oligarchy!!!
I want to know how it is even possible for republicans to win the House when a democrat wins the presidency. Elections for U.S. House of Representatives coincide with the Presidential election of course. If a majority of people vote for a democrat for president, then a majority of people should be voting for democrats for the House.
Mathematically speaking, a large number of people must therefore vote “split ticket” — meaning several people vote for the democrat candidate for president and republican candidate for the U.S. House. I have a hard time believing that. A bunch of democrat voters are going to vote for a republican Representative? Hardly. A bunch of republican voters are going to vote for a democrat President? That sounds far fetched as well.
The who question of what would happen if Hillary wins the Presidency and the Republicans keep the House seems like a moot point to me.
It’s how the system is set up, Electoral votes come from states, not districts. Same reason why Obama may have won in 2012 but he still didn’t get the house back.
Yep, that’s one reason they call it “flyover country,” they resent what they feel is the rural voters inordinate and undue influence on the electoral process, which in their mind should be a pure democracy.
It’s because actual humans are involved in the races. Splits happen because one party is strong on the local level, while the other has a strong leader on the national level. It happened with Reagan and the Democrats in the 80s. The Democrats had strong local political machines on the local level, but on the national level could only field dim candles compared to Reagan’s star power. They simply couldn’t compare on charisma. And then when they had the relatively easier task of facing the much less charismatic George H. W. Bush, they chose the stunningly uncharismatic Michael Dukakis.
Really? Half of America can’t think of a better representative of the future than a 70 year old status quo statist politician?
Life expectancy is clearly too long in this country.
But but but she’s a woman.
And her husband was president during the 90’s and those were great economic times so who doesn’t want that period of time to come back again?
Typical mindset of the brain dead voter in the upcoming election.
Economy wise, Bill Clitnon was simply the luckiest president in history to be sitting in the Oval Office when the internet was born and the entire global economy took off like a rocket. Only BHO could have fvcked up that once in a millennium event by taxing the life out of it.
“Half of Americans think Hillary Clinton represents the future more than any other potential 2016 candidate the headline proclaims at theweek.com”
Should read “half of Americans can’t recognize the names of any other potential candidates other than Hillary Clinton”
Outside of Chicago, did anyone know who Barack Obama was in February of 2007?
Yessir. It’s always the one you DON’T see coming that gets ya.
I’m always reminded of a good old 3 Stooges gag. Somebody runs for office, probably Moe, can’t remember, and ends up winning. He gets into office and proceeds to sit on his ass and, well, be a politician. He gets called on it “Say, didn’t you say you were going to do all this stuff?” to which he quickly shrugged his shoulders and said “Well, sure, but those were campaign promises!” Badumbump. It was funny and true then, and pretty much everybody knew it, and honestly the politicians people took seriously were few and far between. There’s a reason nobody remembers more than the President and maybe a Senator here and there over the last 60 years. These days, half of them burn down in infamy over crap they get caught pulling, and yet somehow we now act shocked and wounded when the others don’t do their job? Why did we think Barry was going to serve the country’s best interest? Cuz Katie Couric said so? An old fella I used to work with was fond of saying “If I didn’t believe Walter Cronkite when he talked, why the hell would I believe ___?”
Damn if I don’t think we’ve just gotten that much dumber. Sorry, old fellas. We dropped the ball.
Anyone who says “If Hillary is elected, our gun rights are gone” is a sellout. Do you really think she’s worse than Barry O? I mean, he’s wanted to take guns, but all the schemes he and Holder have come up with have flopped. All they’ve done is fire people up a lot more. Let that woman pull some stunt to actually take firearms, and watch Americans spin up to a level never before seen. Besides, they know they don’t have the resources in people or equipment to “round ’em all up”. So they can only chip away little by little. And that is where we can fight them, on each and every stupid thing they pull…the same way we’ve fought Barry O all these years. There are more firearms and ammo in private hands now then when he came into office, I guarantee it.
I guess you forgot about or never heard of the M1 Carbine/Garand importation ban from South Korea, 7n6 ammo ban, Russian Saiga ban, Steyr AUG 9mm. kit ban, and the current soon-to-be M855/SS109 ammo ban too all orchestrated or permitted by Obama to happen.
Is everybody in this country on crazy pills? Does everybody forget that this chick lied about coming under enemy fire in the balkans? Brian Williams gets raked over coals for an almost identical lie (as well he should) and people elect this boner graveyard (Jon Stewart’s phrase) to office and now want to make her president?
Doesn’t matter she is a Democrat and a woman, it is all that matters. The MSM has already done its part to cover up those issues so the useful idiots who are begging in droves to can vote for her.
The only reason that Hillary is the lust object of the fawning media and leftards is the fact that she has ovaries instead of testicles. But personally, I think that the American voters should elect Jeb Bush if they really want a POTUS with no balls.
But are we sure she has no balls
She had Bill’s in a lockbox, but the Secret Service gave him a spare key to use when she’s not around.
Since she, like Obama and every Democrat before them know better than to go up against the majority of people who are against gun control, nothing will happen except lip service and ammo will once again become scarce, your local gun shop will once again be out of AR-15s and powder for my reloader will be, once again hard to come by. Nothing sells guns like a Democrat with a microphone.
Really, haven’t we had enough Bushes and Clintons in the White House? Lets give someone else a turn at screwing it up for a while.
Like I already stated above I guess you forgot about or never heard of the M1 Carbine/Garand importation ban from South Korea, 7n6 ammo ban, Russian Saiga ban, Steyr AUG 9mm. kit ban, and the current soon-to-be M855/SS109 ammo ban too all orchestrated or permitted by Obama to happen.
Take all the worst attributes of a republican plus all the worst attributes of a democrat, leave out anything good about either, and that’s what Hillary would do.
I have not read this whole thread, but here are my thoughts on the OP:
1. I do think that despite her baggage, she has a good chance in 2016. So does Warren Buffet, BTW, who has predicted she will win, with a large margin. Remember, at this juncture in 2007, no one thought Obama had a chance. The Libs don’t care about her baggage and the Conservatives wouldn’t have voted for her anyway. The people in the middle can be swayed and the Clinton crowd are the best “swayers” in the business.
2. She has openly said that she thinks 2A is out of date and should be changed or marginalized. I don’t know how high a priority she would make it, but that would be her direction.
3. We are assuming a two-house Republican Congress in 2016. That is probably, but not a given. Also, the Republicans are starting to get limp wristed on 2A.
4. She can appoint Supreme Court Justices. ‘Nuff said.
1) To paraphrase an old Pepsodent ad slogan, “You’ll wonder where your freedom went with Hillary as president.”
2) We’re all assuming Obama will actually step down when his term is up. I envision some “9/11” type emergency situation coming up allowing him to executive-order himself “Chancellor For Life.”
Normally I’d scoff at the notion that Obama would refuse to step aside when his term is up, but as Forrest said above, the crazy option is coming true more and more often these days. I won’t say it’s likely, but I’m not ruling anything out.
There is nothing a GOP-controlled Congress could do to keep her in line, because they’ll have likely lost the Senate in 2016 and probably lost the House by 2018. (The media has the next year and a half to present the GOP-controlled Congress as obstructionist, backward, wrong-thinking and dangerous to the future of the nation). So when the Dems take over everything Hilary will be able to do whatever she wants. Which means a permanent AWB (with no grandfather clause), magazine restrictions (with no grandfather clause), a CA-like “safe registry” of handguns (again, no grandfather clause)…
And I have every belief that if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 (possibly with fellow Socialist grabber Elizabeth Warren) she will win.
Not going to happen. The hardcore left wants Elizabeth Warren, and will squeal for her until she replaces Clinton as the menopause-addled female front runner.
Warren is far more extreme than Clinton on all of the left’s pet issues, is unencumbered by Clinton baggage, and has shown a repeated desire to play dirty politics in the same style as Obama.
If Warren is elected, I wouldn’t even be surprised if she appointed Shannon Watts or Mike Bloomberg as director of the ATF. NOTHING would surprise me from that particular individual.
Warren is the Social Justice Warrior personified, and she will do battle against mainstream America and conservatives/libertarians in a way that will make Obama look tame.
The Presidency is hers to lose. Texas and other red states have high population growth in urban areas who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Democrats have a stronger position than ever with a near lock on over 200 electoral votes.
Republicans need to do everything possible to shed any labels that alienate the country (whether those labels are accurate or not): anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti-minority, anti-Social Security in order to stand a chance.
Maybe we should ask those same pollees if their view of the future is optimistic or pessimistic/
Can we please get a “none of the above – go back and present better choices” on the ballot?
was she in charge of protection of americans overseas, (I forget the title), when an embassy was attacked, — and did nothing……………….and from the smile on her face, she found a personal use for that antique firearm…
Hitlery and Obozo are both children of Saul Alinsky.
Hitlery =Obozo. SSDD.
Depends on how you do the math. Answering 50% of the questions on a government test correctly is passing. Answer 51% correctly, and you’re a freaking genius. As is now, the same people that voted obama in, twice, will vote for hillary. By 2016? That depends, can she hide her mental illness until after the election? Will the Republicans lose by default again?
Pure craven opportunist. Will do anything she thinks she can get away with to obtain power and retain power. She is the sort about whom the Framers warned and against whom the Founders warred.
1. I really, really hope she gets the nomination. If the Republicans run anything other than a walking corpse out there (see McCain, John) they can trounce Hillary. Going back to Bill Clinton’s first term the sexier, hip candidate has won every time. Hillary is neither sexy nor hip.
2. Beware Cory Booker. In many ways he is the second coming of Obama. He could come out of nowhere and win. I am scared to death of him.
3. As others have pointed out, the President would be unlikely to actually get gun control legislation passed. The House is pretty well stacked in the favor of Republicans through gerrymandering. Over the next several years it would take an epic disaster for the Republicans to lose the majority in that chamber.
4. What a Democratic POTUS could do is pass a series of executive orders to infringe on our rights and act through executive agencies to render unfavorable bureaucratic interpretations of existing laws. Nothing really substantial would go through, but we would die a death of a thousand Sig arm braces, ammo restrictions, etc.
5. The really scary thing about a Dem POTUS would be the judicial appointments. Every anti-gun judge appointment could stick around to haunt us for decades. It would be great to get a Republican in office if for no other reason than to replace Ginsburg when she reaches her expiration date. One more Republican SC justice would enable us to make some serious 2A hay.
I just hope she gets an intern to go down on her cob-webbed snootch in the Oval office.
I really could have ended this day without *that* mental image to haunt my dreams…
How do you guys take yourselves seriously? All I want is any piece of credible evidence supporting the fear of Hillary Clinton seriously curtailing gun rights. The same things were said about Obama, but he didn’t do anything. Then the same things were said about Obama’s re-election. Perhaps I’ll be eating crow before he leaves office, but there is no evidence to suggest he’s remotely interested in taking executive action to attempt to curtail gun rights. Nor is there any evidence that Hillary would. Unless I’m missing something. I don’t like Hillary, but I like baseless, ignorant rabble rousing even more. Care to enlighten me? (Try to use evidence rather than “those evil Dems gon’ take our guns!”)
….. Did you watch TV, go on the internet, or read a newspaper in 2012 or 2013? You seriously have missed out on the last 6 years? You drunk dude?
Let me guess, you are a Proud Member of Local 00, UBBWM (United Brotherhood of Buggy Whip Machinists Union) and you have and will vote the straight Democrat ticket every election.
What would Hillary do?
I firmly believe, based on her gender and history she’d not be a friend of the 2A. If we lost GOP power to offset her, American’s could loose most if not all their 2A Rights. I also believe she will promote a firearm as not an option for self defense, to possibly save a child’s life, but as a detriment. This I personally would find unforgivable and would lump her into my same trash bin as Bloomberg et al and Shanon Watts.
If she chooses to run, she will be hit hard, like with a meat clever, about Benghazi and I’m not convinced she can survive. The silence for other candidates for the Demo’s is odd and seems overconfident.
I agree that Hillary represents the future: lying through your teeth and hiding behind a wall of politically correctness, then calling sexist, racist, or whatever -ist at anyone who disagrees with you is pretty much future America in a nutshell.
Please America, don’t elect another Democrat!
I did read sometime back, in an interview, that hillary said she had a personal agenda for running the country. Of course, later, it was claimed to be taken out of context. You know, like she said it and somebody heard it. Will she lay out her “personal agenda” for the country before or after she is elected? It is not how she feels about “guns”, it is about how does she feel about the 2nd Amendment, and The Constitution itself. Obama has shown a remarkable ability to circumvent The Constitution, the courts, every check and balance built in at the federal level. No reason to think hillary will give up any power passed on to her by his administration in 2016. Rule by “personal agenda” might very well translate into tyranny.
She has F rating with NRA.
In case she does run don’t vote for her.
Voting has power.
What would, could a Republican-controlled Congress do to keep her in line, firearms freedom-wise?
Obama has set a lot of executive precedents… Bad precedents. And the republican party has shown themselves to be pretty spinless as of late. I don’t think congress could keep a determined Hillary in mind. It’d come down to a lot of people vs gov lawsuits, IMO.